SOCOM looks to ditch 7.62

[Koli01]

Actually no, it is not. A 7mm uses a .284 bullet. Done enough reloading to know the difference.

Yes the round was called the .276 Pederson since back in those days the English speaking world didn't do metric anything. I think I remember reading a Phil Sharpe book where the army gave DCM thousands of free rounds to try in a couple of preproduction Garands at Camp Perry in the early 30s when they were set to roll the cartridge out as the official service round. These days you'd be hard pressed to even find an advanced cartridge collector who even has an solitary example of the cartridge.

Either way, the point is that 6.5 or 6.8mm, the US military's flirtation is not a new thing.

Ok, I'll buy that.

[EZ3]

So I don't get this. If 6.5 - 7mm is supposedly the Holy Grail for military cartridges, why don't any major military powers use it? Both the Garand and the FAL were designed around cartridges in this range, but converted to .30 caliber cartridges. Arming most of the troops with .22s and just a couple per unit with .308 seems awkward and complicated both operationally and logistically.

[Ecclectic Collector]

So I don't get this. If 6.5 - 7mm is supposedly the Holy Grail for military cartridges, why don't any major military powers use it? Both the Garand and the FAL were designed around cartridges in this range, but converted to .30 caliber cartridges. Arming most of the troops with .22s and just a couple per unit with .308 seems awkward and complicated both operationally and logistically.

I don't get it either. No question, the 6.5, 6.8 and 7mm diameters offer superb ballistics.

A lot of smaller nations used most of those calibers as basis of standard military rounds for many decades.

I think why the US stuck with the 7.62 caliber is more a matter of economic inertia, but ultimately simple math plays a role. The typical bullet for a 7.62mm weighs in between 150-165 grains. Bullets that have the miracle ballistic coefficient in the 6.5 to 7mm range are at the heavier end ranging between 130-150 grains.

See where I'm going? You don't get any weight advantage in the soldier's weight carry load with these rounds over the existing 7.62mm. And to add insult to the trade off, you get nearly the same level of recoil.

[wanneroo]

It's not uncommon for SOCOM or the ARMY to test out all sorts of different things. Doesn't mean they will happen. A relative was a small arms program manager for years and many of those projects never went anywhere in the end.

[mosseater]

I don't get it either. No question, the 6.5, 6.8 and 7mm diameters offer superb ballistics.

A lot of smaller nations used most of those calibers as basis of standard military rounds for many decades.

I think why the US stuck with the 7.62 caliber is more a matter of economic inertia, but ultimately simple math plays a role. The typical bullet for a 7.62mm weighs in between 150-165 grains. Bullets that have the miracle ballistic coefficient in the 6.5 to 7mm range are at the heavier end ranging between 130-150 grains.

See where I'm going? You don't get any weight advantage in the soldier's weight carry load with these rounds over the existing 7.62mm. And to add insult to the trade off, you get nearly the same level of recoil.

This is what I'm seeing as well. The law of diminishing returns kicks in when the margins of needlessness are pushed. It's a lot of infrastructure cost to support a very small chance at a very small improvement. I'm right back to needless. With the history of firearms development such as it is, practical improvements are baby steps with pushing lead through a tube. The next step to make a big splash will probably be something "otherworldly", not pin-on-primer-go-bang.

[qmcorps]

It's all about logistics. Since Korea we have fought low intensity/regional conflicts with absolute control of the Manufacturing/Supply lines. If there is a major war where the supply lines are interdicted as in WW2 (Uboats), multiple calibers create multiple problems. The Germans created this problem for themselves in WW2 by using anyone/everyone's weapons with varying calibers.

What is perfect today, may not be tomorrow. but may be again in the future. Military weapons are utilitarian* and need to mitigate multiple types of threats. Your best bang for the buck would be better trained shooters. A friend of mine whacked a Jihadi at 600 meters with an M16A2 with a scope he brought with him. Dave is an excellent shot. It was verified by multiple witnesses.

*sans a few special purpose small arms. These are the exception, not the rule.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

So they want to replace 5.56 as well with a polymer cased round. There goes fire superiority. The weapons will overheat twice as fast.

And they want the basic infantry rifle optimized for long range, where it is almost never used. Of course, they say 6.5 will be more effective at close range. With what type of ammo is that the case? Are our troops going to be carrying that type of ammo? 5.56 has better terminal ballistics than 7.62 with military ammo. And it will have better terminal ballistics than 6.5 with ball ammo, although I know we have changed ammo a bit, not sure what they plan to use for 6.5. Doubt it will be the stuff they shoot into gel on you tube.

Less terminal performance (MAYBE), rapid overheating (oh but we can carry more ammo, just can't shoot it), and slower engagement due to higher recoil. But now we can hit targets at ranges people don't shoot at. I assume we are going to rebuild our machineguns, too, so they can overheat faster? Or will they still be 7.62?

What people are doing now is fine. Have one or two battle rifles per squad. A SAW will put a hole straight through your head at 800 meters if you stick it up. It's not a cap gun. You want to play around with sniper rifle calibers? OK, that makes sense.

It is only not used because ROE & the ballistics of the round prevent it. That and the fact we don't actually teach people to shoot. I doubt 1 in 1000 infantrymen could pass the British Marksmanship standards before WWI.

It's all about logistics. Since Korea we have fought low intensity/regional conflicts with absolute control of the Manufacturing/Supply lines. If there is a major war where the supply lines are interdicted as in WW2 (Uboats), multiple calibers create multiple problems. The Germans created this problem for themselves in WW2 by using anyone/everyone's weapons with varying calibers.

What is perfect today, may not be tomorrow. but may be again in the future. Military weapons are utilitarian* and need to mitigate multiple types of threats. Your best bang for the buck would be better trained shooters. A friend of mine whacked a Jihadi at 600 meters with an M16A2 with a scope he brought with him. Dave is an excellent shot. It was verified by multiple witnesses.

*sans a few special purpose small arms. These are the exception, not the rule.

I agree, of course I firmly believe the 5.56 should be dumped immediately. to be replaced by whatever ~ .30 round preforms best ballistically.

[knight0334]

What's really funny is that the 6.5 carcano loaded with modern bullets and powder would basically be the ideal modern infantry cartridge, and its 126 years old.

JFK approves...

[Ecclectic Collector]

JFK approves...

I was wondering when someone would bring that up...

The 6.8 SPC round is oh so close to those medium power 6.5mm rounds. It pushes a 117 gr bullet out the barrel at around 2500 fps. Great long range ballistics, but you got to to weird sh** to the twist rate to make it unstable so it will tumble and increase its lethality.

Historically, a common complaint of the Italian and Japanese soldiers who used the 6.5mm rounds was a lack of knock down power. The d*** bullets just went neatly thru the target. So much for combat effectiveness.

Of course as Lee Harvey Oswald demonstrated one well placed bullet will do the job regardless.

[Pittsburgh Pete]

General Raymond "Tony" Thomas commands SOCOM.

I served with him from 1985-1987 when he was Captain Thomas, worked with him on a daily basis and he is one of the best officers this country has ever produced.

He was a platoon leader with 2nd Ranger Battalion during the invasion of Grenada. I served him at HQ, 75th Ranger Regiment. He went on to become a battalion and regimental commander.

If they are changing rounds, I'm sure they know what they are doing.